X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["957" "Tue" "15" "December" "1998" "11:54:40" "+0000" "Sebastian Rahtz" "s.rahtz@ELSEVIER.CO.UK" nil "22" "Re: pdf and ps portable LaTeX" "^Date:" nil nil "12" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: from listserv.gmd.de (listserv.gmd.de [192.88.97.1]) by mail.Uni-Mainz.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA23944; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:57:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from lsv1.listserv.gmd.de (192.88.97.2) by listserv.gmd.de (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.EAFDB41C@listserv.gmd.de>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:57:21 +0100 Received: from RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 413381 for LATEX-L@RELAY.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:57:18 +0100 Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk (root@pillar.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.222.35]) by relay.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA27179 for ; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:57:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]; by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP; for ""; sender "s.rahtz@elsevier.co.uk"; id LAA24597; hop 0; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:48:30 GMT Received: from srahtz (actually host srahtz.elsevier.co.uk) by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:56:27 +0000 X-Mailer: emacs 20.3.2 (via feedmail 9-beta-3 I); VM 6.61 under Emacs 20.3.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <13938.39518.68424.927988@fell.open.ac.uk> <199812092035.VAA16014@na6.mathematik.uni-tuebingen.de> <13941.7255.489674.140731@srahtz> Message-ID: <13942.19968.751211.688253@srahtz> Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:54:40 +0000 From: Sebastian Rahtz Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: pdf and ps portable LaTeX Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 3137 Hans Aberg writes: > So, if dvips and becomes commercially hot, then Adobe can ask for license > fees for both dvips and pdftex: In the case of dvips that is wholly how can they demand fees? they published the language in a book, which did NOT say "if you implement this language you must pay us". they have no legal grounds for turning around and changing their minds. If they could, so could Knuth for TeX! in what way does the PDF specification differ from the TeX specification? Adobe control one, Knuth the other. Knuth gave away the source code of an implementation, Adobe only give away compiled versions. thats about it, probably. > market: Then Adobe might want to do that. Whatever the rules are now, Adobe > might decide to change them. they can make a PDF-NG and not release the spec. but there is no sign they they want to commit commercial suicide. > I just point out how those things work are you a copyright lawyer, then? sebastian